The Supreme Court on Monday raised questions over a previous verdict that denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. A two-judge Bench indicated that the earlier decision may have overlooked a binding precedent established by a larger bench of the court.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that a Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a separate narco-terrorism case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, pointed out that a smaller bench is obligated to follow judgments rendered by a bench of greater strength.
On January 5, a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had denied bail to Khalid and Imam, stating that the material on record suggested their involvement extended to planning, mobilization, and strategic direction, thereby attracting the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. This section imposes stringent conditions for granting bail to individuals accused of offences under certain chapters of the Act.
However, the current Bench, presided over by Justice Bhuyan, expressed significant reservations about this previous ruling. “A judgement rendered by a Bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a Bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such a binding precedent must either be followed, or in case of doubt, be referred to a larger Bench. A smaller Bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a larger Bench,” Justice Bhuyan stated while pronouncing the judgment.
Justice Bhuyan highlighted the significance of the three-judge Bench’s decision in the KA Najeeb case from 2021, which held that prolonged incarceration could serve as a ground for constitutional courts to grant bail under the UAPA, even with the restrictions imposed by Section 43D(5) of the Act. The court reiterated that the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA should be interpreted as a circumscribed restriction that operates within the framework of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22. The Bench firmly stated, “Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Of course, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to the facts of that particular case.”
Section 43D(5) of the UAPA stipulates that notwithstanding other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), no person accused of an offence under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA can be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, a proviso to this section states that bail shall not be granted if the court, upon reviewing the case diary or charge sheet, finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusation against the person is prima facie true.
The Bench expressed “serious reservations about judgment in Gulfisha Fatima (in which Khalid and Imam were denied bail),” noting that the judgment seemed to interpret the Najeeb verdict as a narrow, exceptional departure from Section 43D(5) applicable only in extreme factual situations. “It is this hollowing out of the import of the observations in Najeeb that we are concerned with,” the court remarked, adding that the broad reading suggested in Najeeb implied that the mere passage of time, arising from surrounding circumstances, could mechanically entitle an accused to release.
The court made it clear that the Najeeb verdict is binding law and entitled to the protection of judicial discipline. “It cannot be diluted, circumvented, or disregarded by trial courts, High Courts, or even by Benches of lower strength of this Court,” the Bench of Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan emphasized.
In a related development, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a resident of Handwara in Kupwara district of Jammu and Kashmir, was granted bail. Andrabi, arrested by the NIA on June 11, 2020, was accused of being part of a cross-border drug syndicate involved in procuring heroin from the Tangdhar border area and channeling proceeds to fund militant outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. A Special NIA Court in Jammu had denied him bail in August 2024, a decision upheld by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.
Andrabi faces charges under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the UAPA, and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for criminal conspiracy.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
